NVIDIA has reportedly pulled the performance-segment GeForce GTX 1060, a possible competitor for the recently launched AMD Radeon RX 480, from its earlier reported Fall-2016 launch to early July. The card is expected to be officially launched on the 7th of July, 2016. Market availability is expected to follow a week later, on 14th July. This will be the third desktop graphics card based on NVIDIA's "Pascal" architecture, following the GTX 1080 and the GTX 1070.

Price will be the key here. If NVIDIA can get this card in at less than RX 480 - and since GTX 1060 has less memory, which means lower cost of BOM, that's theoretically possible - then AMD has nothing until Vega.

Assimilator said:Price will be the key here. If NVIDIA can get this card in at less than RX 480 - and since GTX 1060 has less memory, which means lower cost of BOM, that's theoretically possible - then AMD has nothing until Vega.

Except that many buyers - me included - don't think 3 GB is enough. 6 GB sounds like it could be the sweet spot though. There's also performance to consider. I personally don't expect the GTX 1060 to beat the RX 480 in performance, because the GTX 1060 is exactly half of a GTX 1080, and RX 480 has more than half of the GTX 1080's performance.

The biggest advantage of the GTX 1060 over the RX 480 will be lower power consumption.

robert3892 said:NVIDIA currently can't keep stock of their 1070 and 1080 so why should the 1060 be any different

GP106 is a different chip. It's smaller, thus easier to make. Even if it suffers from limited availability at launch, stock will pick up faster than stock of GP104.

Assimilator said:Price will be the key here. If NVIDIA can get this card in at less than RX 480 - and since GTX 1060 has less memory, which means lower cost of BOM, that's theoretically possible - then AMD has nothing until Vega.

My bet is on the $275-300 range. Since 1070 needs as much power as the 480, any Pascal chip smaller than 1070 will require less than 480. With at least a power advantage, I don't see Nvidia selling for less than AMD. Of course, I'd love to be able to buy the 1060 in the $200-250 range, but I'm not holding my breath.

SonicZap said:Except that many buyers - me included - don't think 3 GB is enough. 6 GB sounds like it could be the sweet spot though. There's also performance to consider. I personally don't expect the GTX 1060 to beat the RX 480 in performance, because the GTX 1060 is exactly half of a GTX 1080, and RX 480 has more than half of the GTX 1080's performance.

The biggest advantage of the GTX 1060 over the RX 480 will be lower power consumption.

The caveat here is that halving TMUs, ROPs, shaders and whatnot, does not halve the performance. One more week to go till we find out.

SonicZap said:Except that many buyers - me included - don't think 3 GB is enough. 6 GB sounds like it could be the sweet spot though. There's also performance to consider. I personally don't expect the GTX 1060 to beat the RX 480 in performance, because the GTX 1060 is exactly half of a GTX 1080, and RX 480 has more than half of the GTX 1080's performance.

The biggest advantage of the GTX 1060 over the RX 480 will be lower power consumption.

I say it tears the 480's pants off and spanks it naked. Ez....

Why? 48 ROPs... Higher clock... and like you (almost) said half the power consumption.

Based on AMD's 14nm performance, which is basically equal to Nvidia's 28nm.

I say it's 20% faster and will cost $299. Founders edition, however will be $349, and it will come with a sticker.

Interesting that NVIDIA is pushing the release date of the GTX 1060 so far forward. Do they see the RX 480 as some type of threat? Unless they are just really far ahead in terms of preparations for its release, which does seems far less likely, I truly wonder why they would rush to get the card out so soon.

Nevertheless, this "high value and low power usage" face-off is great news for consumers. In Australia, the RX 480 ranges from AU$320-$450 (8GB version), which is very reasonable (here) for a card that can handle decent 1080p performance.

I think this chart is relevant when setting pricing expectations, I simply can't imagine NV releasing faster but cheaper card, it will be either or.

Basard said:Higher clock...

You realize that if Fury clocked as 980Ti it would beat it with enormous gap?
(number of transistors is different, but both are 600mm² chips)
It's different architecture, Hz values matter as much as they mattered in CPUs in Prescott times.

the54thvoid said:I'm 99.9% sure that the GTX 1060 will be on par with or even a tad slower.

Are you coming from "it's a half of 1080, so it should be half its performance"?

Assimilator said:Price will be the key here.

Matching 480 on perf/$, wouldn't be arrogant enough for Huang, I think.
Why would he not charge the NV tax?

If it comes at $250 with 6GB RAM and performance close to GTX 980 it will sell nicely. Of course it will be facing cheaper custom RX 480 cards not just the reference model. And for many consumers it will be a "8GB vs 6GB" comparison. But it will have a tremendous advantage on power efficiency over RX480. AMD will probably respond with RX470 that probably keeps for after GTX 1060. It wouldn't be in the same category with GTX 1060 but it will play the same roll RX480 is playing. It will be a good enough card to stop people from paying over $200 for a new graphics card. That will give AMD an advantage in under $200 market until GTX 1050 comes.

medi01 said:You realize that if Fury clocked as 980Ti it would beat it with enormous gap?
(number of transistors is different, but both are 600mm² chips)
It's different architecture, Hz values matter as much as they mattered in CPUs in Prescott times.

HAH! That's a big IF..... And that wasn't my sole reason as to "why"..... If Fury's clock was any higher it would melt, then explode. What's the point of arguing if it were clocked the same as a 980Ti when that's NEVER going to happen?

Yeah, it's a different architecture, a really shitty one. A billion shaders, a billion TMUs, and 64 ROPs....

Furthermore, if Hz values don't matter so much, then why does performance increase when you increase them?

please dont be bad.
Honestly I think ill be disappointing with this if they are only attempting to be in the range of the RX480.

The RX480 might have been marked for 220 dollars for the 8gb model, but I have to pay 320 for it.... which is quite a difference.
That makes me feel even this borderline entry level card will be way too expensive so maybe it does not even matter in the end how well it performs :(

Assimilator said:Yeah, that DirectX 12 support is super important for when you want benchmarks that show AMD cards are faster than NVIDIA ones. For actual games that people want to play, nobody cares.

That is such a pants-on-head-retarded analogy that I'm not even going to bother trying to correct you.

Iiiiiis it? If 3,5 GB of memory runs at lightning speed and the 0.5 GB of data is sitting inside the slow part, what do you think it's going to happen? It's EXACTLY like car with 1 defective wheel that's dragging it to the side and slowing it down. EXACTLY like that.